Perhaps Andy had more pressing things to do than arguing the toss with you and your fellow travellers, many of whom were involved in that thread, all singing from the same hymn book ...

Seems to me that he answered succinctly and precisely all the thousands of posts you and your fellow travellers have made asserting the contrary, both before and since. Not the slightest need for him to state it again, or in a different form.

If you and said fellow travellers cannot understand that clear message, that's your problem ...

Equally, I am not interested in debating this with you either. May as well try to reason with a religious fundamentalist. The zeal with which you pursue your personal re-writing of the history and usage of photographic terms places you in this position, no one else ...

..."trying to reason with a religious fundamentalist", how would you characterize the nature of the author of the quotesPOST here?

But, to get things back on track, in case you change your mind, let me repeat my question (this time without the typo):

For a given scene, does f/2.8 1/100 ISO 400 on mFT (4/3) have the same exposure as f/5.6 1/100 ISO 1600 on FF? A "yes" or "no" will do nicely.

If "yes", then I'm afraid I don't see what point you are making. If "no", what is the significance of the exposures being different?

As always, answers are voluntary, not compulsory. Either way, enjoy your day.

If you prefer, trying to argue that the Earth isn't flat with a devout flat-Earthist ... Take your pick ...

May you enjoy yours as well.

It being late here, and at the end of a long week, I misunderstood your question - I answered about the author of the referred post, not the author of the "quotes" that the author of that post has almost certainly misquoted, or quoted out of context.

Your convoluted modus operandi has this effect all the time - it appears to be directed towards adding confusion rather than clarity to every thread in which you participate. It flows through to the convolutions of your "equivalence theory" and whatever ramifications it might have for photography. I suspect the latter is limited, as Andy W stated here:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/37639920

"If you decide that you want to go with something rather different, based upon depth of field and photon noise, then you can make a perfectly good argument that F2 on Four Thirds is equivalent to F2.5 on APS-C and F4 on full frame. This is an alternative framework for comparison that offers a useful different insight, but it's just that - an alternative that uses a different convention. It's just not one we've chosen to adopt (especially when writing brief specification comparison tables)."

This follows his previous paragraph that:

"However, everything comes down to what you want the word 'aperture' and F-numbers to mean, which is why both sides of the debate are so vehement that they're correct. If you're talking in terms of metering and exposure, F2 is F2 is F2, regardless of format. And that's the context we use when listing specs, because that's what manufacturers use and the vast majority of photographers understand."

Maybe you should do a course on clear "thinking and writing, rather than the one you are currently doing - "How to win friends and influence people" ...